I suppose most would say a perfect balance of the two, but I also suspect that each palate gravitates more towards one or the other.

I ask this because I'm a bit quirky in that I favor champagnes on the aged and languid end (if I can choose). I don't mind a moderate loss of effervescence and love bubblies that have that mellow honeyed tone. And it doesn't matter if it's a Chardonnay dominated cuvee or a Pinot-dominated one. Although the blanc de blancs often take longer to get to that desired mellowness.

On the other hand, I know that some tasters downgrade any champagne that doesn't have adequate zest and vitality. But I've had champagnes that others would surely claim as near-gone, and I enjoyed them!

Jeff

"Meeting Franklin Roosevelt was like opening your first bottle of champagne. Knowing him was like drinking it." - Winston Churchill

According the the Champagne houses -- who tell me that their product is perfect for drinking on release and there's no need to keep it but one should drink straight away -- I like it aged. By which I mean I keep between 6 months and 3 years before opening and I think there is a noticeable improvment, especially on the cheaper ones.

But I don't like the deep coloured lost -fizz ones that I get when I keep for too long.

Jeff, I'm with you exactly. Loss of fizz is not a problem with me if it is accompanied by greater honied notes and mineral complexity. Years ago I had a Piper Heidsieck NV at least 25 years old that was fabulous but with little fizz.

A little age on my champagne usually works best for me. In the mid-1980s, I opened a bottle of Taylor champagne about ten years after it had been the wine at a weeding. This was about $4 a bottle, New York State champagne. Expecting the worst for good reason, I was very pleasantly surprised by a light sherry flavor with a slight sparkle. While I would not repeat this with any expectation of quality (Taylor doesn't even exist for all intents and purposes) it did teach me that champagne with some age can be a very good thing indeed.

Jon Peterson wrote:A little age on my champagne usually works best for me. In the mid-1980s, I opened a bottle of Taylor champagne about ten years after it had been the wine at a weeding. This was about $4 a bottle, New York State champagne. Expecting the worst for good reason, I was very pleasantly surprised by a light sherry flavor with a slight sparkle. While I would not repeat this with any expectation of quality (Taylor doesn't even exist for all intents and purposes) it did teach me that champagne with some age can be a very good thing indeed.

I agree Jon. While I wouldn't turn down a youthful champagne, it is when a champagne loses its bubbles that it really starts to get interesting, in my humble opinion.

I was taught that lesson by, of all bottles, a NV Perrier Jouet. It was in a half bottle and was probably "well over the hill" by all scientific measures. The fizz was languid and vanished quickly after about 15 minutes in the glass. But it was one of the most interesting champagnes I've ever had - with a burnt caramel apple type of flavor. I learned that day that not only do I like "over the hill" champagne, but that even NV bottles can evolve into something magical with enough aging. Not that every bottle does, but you never know until you pop the cork.

Jeff

"Meeting Franklin Roosevelt was like opening your first bottle of champagne. Knowing him was like drinking it." - Winston Churchill

Jon Peterson wrote:A little age on my champagne usually works best for me. In the mid-1980s, I opened a bottle of Taylor champagne about ten years after it had been the wine at a weeding. This was about $4 a bottle, New York State champagne. Expecting the worst for good reason, I was very pleasantly surprised by a light sherry flavor with a slight sparkle. While I would not repeat this with any expectation of quality (Taylor doesn't even exist for all intents and purposes) it did teach me that champagne with some age can be a very good thing indeed.

I agree Jon. While I wouldn't turn down a youthful champagne, it is when a champagne loses its bubbles that it really starts to get interesting, in my humble opinion.

I was taught that lesson by, of all bottles, a NV Perrier Jouet. It was in a half bottle and was probably "well over the hill" by all scientific measures. The fizz was languid and vanished quickly after about 15 minutes in the glass. But it was one of the most interesting champagnes I've ever had - with a burnt caramel apple type of flavor. I learned that day that not only do I like "over the hill" champagne, but that even NV bottles can evolve into something magical with enough aging. Not that every bottle does, but you never know until you pop the cork.

At MOCOOL a few years ago, the theme was "Sweet 16 and Bubbly", which meant any wines 16 years old (1990) or sparkling wines. There were several examples that hit both criteria. I recall tasting about a dozen 1990 vintage Champagnes. It was my first experience with aged Champagne and I was amazed. A common characteristic of these wines was earthy, mushroomy aromas that had developed over time, which I liked.

I'd say younger for Chard, older for Pinot and blends, but in any case the age should be accompanied by late disgorgement. The nicest part of the Chards is their abundant fruit, while the yeast autolysis is what makes an aged Champagne to me. I'm not a big oxidation freak.